On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Ralf Gommers
<ralf.gommers@googlemail.com>wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> > wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Ralf Gommers <
>>>ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Below are two test failures in fftpack. The test data is random, so they
>>>> happen only occasionally. I decreased the precision to decimal=5 and
>>>> maxulp=1e4, but still got one failure of each test in 200 test runs. The
>>>> TestSingleIFFT failure always occurs with an array of size 111. This is on
>>>> OS X 10.6, the same first error was also reported on 10.5.
>>>>>>>> What should be done with these failures?
>>>>>>>>>> I guess the first thing is to figure out what is going on, and that needs
>>> something repeatable. Maybe the test could be repeated with a set of seeds
>>> until the problem appears. Also, since 111 = 3*37, I wonder what happens
>>> with other odd primes besides 37. It might be worth testing with 97 and
>>> other such.
>>>>>> Attached is a small script to test with larger primes. You can supply a
>> fixed seed but it's not even necessary. Typical result:
>> arraysize, max error
>> 1 0.0
>> 17 4.76837e-07
>> 37 2.98023e-06
>> 97 0.000104427
>> 313 0.000443935
>> 701 0.00112867
>> 1447 0.00620008
>> 2011 0.0138307
>> 3469 0.16958
>>>> So even decimal=4 would fail for 97 already. For larger primes the FFT
>> should be slower but not less accurate, right?
>>>> Any opinion on this? Is it easily fixable? This is the last thing holding
> up 0.8.0 I think, can we mark it knownfail
>
Is that something that just get's done in the release notes?
> for that or does anyone think it's important enough to delay the release
> for?
>> Ralf
>> If I use the numpy.fft.fft/ifft the result is:
>> 1 0.0
>> 17 7.54951656745e-15
>> 37 2.99760216649e-15
>> 97 4.99600361081e-15
>> 313 1.65423230669e-14
>> 701 5.66213742559e-15
>> 1447 3.0253577421e-14
>> 2011 1.87072579649e-14
>> 3469 1.09912079438e-14
>>>> Looks a lot better.
>>>So how hard would it be to bypass whatever's doing the work in fftpack and
just call numpy.fft.fft? Is it just a matter of someone writing such a
patch and testing it?
DG
>>>>> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
>SciPy-Dev@scipy.org>http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev>>
--
Mathematician: noun, someone who disavows certainty when their uncertainty
set is non-empty, even if that set has measure zero.
Hope: noun, that delusive spirit which escaped Pandora's jar and, with her
lies, prevents mankind from committing a general suicide. (As interpreted
by Robert Graves)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20100624/354cd955/attachment-0001.html